Overlapping jurisdictions of hierarchs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nine_Two
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nine_Two

Guest
theistgal said:
I’m sure the Orthodox don’t want to suppress us at all. 😉
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by suppress.

Parallel hierarchies is troubling, and in the case of union the hierarchies themselves would have to be suppressed, but only at the time of Union.
The rights and rituals, however, do not.
 
Nine_Two said:
Depends what you mean by suppress.

Parallel hierarchies is troubling, and in the case of union the hierarchies themselves would have to be suppressed, but only at the time of Union.
The rights and rituals, however, do not.
Click to expand...
The issue of parallel hierachies would not nearly be solved for the Orthodox even if the Catholic Church were completely removed from the situation. The lack of authority is an issue that has always and will continue to plauge the Orthodox communion.
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
The issue of parallel hierachies would not nearly be solved for the Orthodox even if the Catholic Church were completely removed from the situation. ** The lack of authority is an issue that has always and will continue to plauge the Orthodox communion.**
Click to expand...
Elaborate on this please.
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
The issue of parallel hierachies would not nearly be solved for the Orthodox even if the Catholic Church were completely removed from the situation. The lack of authority is an issue that has always and will continue to plauge the Orthodox communion.
Click to expand...
There are three (possibly four) countries where we have parallel hierarchies. Something much easier to solve than the rather large number of parallel hierarchies (growing all the time) under the Pope.
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
The issue of parallel hierachies would not nearly be solved for the Orthodox even if the Catholic Church were completely removed from the situation. The lack of authority is an issue that has always and will continue to plauge the Orthodox communion.
Click to expand...
This is a really odd comment to make when the Roman Catholic communion has more parallel hierarchies than the Orthodox do.
 
In the Catholic Communion, parallel hierarchies don’t seem to be that widespread outside of the Anglo-world and the Middle East - though I could be wrong. Certainly in many countries the local Latin bishop is the sole hierarch in the region (and in a few countries - the local Eastern hierarch - Eritrea comes to mind). I understand that having two Byzantine eparchs for the same city would be an issue in the event of union (for example - the Ukrainian Orthodox eparch of Edmonton and the Ukrainian Catholic eparch of Edmonton - one would have to step down in favor of the other)… but would distinct hierarchs for distinct Rites be an issue? Would the Orthodox insist on returning to the more ancient model of one bishop per city even in a world where, due to immigration, many Rites exist side by side in certain regions? There was a time when the Eastern Catholic faithful in the US/Canada were under the local Latin bishops…that didn’t work out so well. And as the Latins were in most areas of the US/Canada first, it would be unfair for all of the Latin bishops to step down in favor of Eastern bishops in these regions.
 
Just to correct a possible misunderstanding of the Orthodox jurisdictions overlapping here in the West–it is only a Western problem, i.e., in the America’s, Australia and to a lesser extent Europe. In traditionally Orthodox lands, we find only the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, only the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Bulgaria, only the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece, etc. etc.
In countries less traditionally Orthodox, we find churches founded by immigrants and expatriates: Lebanese, Palestinian, Greek, Russian, Romanian and so forth. When the immigrants arrived they lived within their own ‘ethnic enclaves’ and stayed mostly to themselves, just trying to establish themselves in a foreign land. The hierarchs communicated, but through the 1700’s until the mid 1900’s there was little public discussion of the essentially non-canonical situation in North and South America.
There was little movement to unify into an American Orthodox Church until the SCOBA group started (Standing Committee of Orthodox Bishops in America) and we now find each jurisdiction with a complete hierarchy, church buildings and parish councils pretty much set in their ways.
It will take probably another generation or two for American Orthodox of different original stripes to drop the differences and unite. The bishops have (pretty much) organized their dioceses to not overlap; now the laity have to ‘buy in.’
 
dzheremi said:
This is a really odd comment to make when the Roman Catholic communion has more parallel hierarchies than the Orthodox do.
Click to expand...
There is not one instance in the Catholic communion where rival bishops, Eastern or Western, claim authority over the same group of laity, causing the laity to “pick” which patriarch they claim loyalty to. Please look at the current claims of jurisdiction of Russian Orthodox Patriarch and you’ll see that he has many claims to areas where other self-governing Orthodox churches also exist.

Another instance would be that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople does not recognize the self-governing authority of the OCA here in America and considers them to be subjects of the Russian Patriarch, even though in this instance the Russian Patriarch considers them self-governing and does not claim jurisdiction over them. I’m sorry, but you’ll not find such instances of confusion of authority/communion within the Catholic Church.

America was first a jurisdiction of the Latin Church and remains to this day primarily so, which is why Eastern Rite priests and laity who came to America in the 1800’s fell under the Latin bishop until they received their own bishops, and some still fall under the Latin bishops such as the Russian Catholic’s.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the Orthodox do not recognize the validity of the Coptic/Oriental Orthodox and consider them schismatic.
 
Nine_Two said:
There are three (possibly four) countries where we have parallel hierarchies. Something much easier to solve than the rather large number of parallel hierarchies (growing all the time) under the Pope.
Click to expand...
All Catholic “parrallel hierarchies” are in full communion with eachother and the Bishop of Rome and have no rival claims agianst eachother. As such, comparing Catholic “parrallel hierarchies” and Orthodox “parrallel hierarchies” is not a valid comparison since in the former there is no breach of communion or teaching authority while in the latter there most certianly is.

With all due respect, you are trying to compare “apples with oranges.”
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
Another instance would be that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople does not recognize the self-governing authority of the OCA here in America and considers them to be subjects of the Russian Patriarch, even though in this instance the Russian Patriarch considers them self-governing and does not claim jurisdiction over them. I’m sorry, but you’ll not find such instances of confusion of authority/communion within the Catholic Church.

America was first a jurisdiction of the Latin Church and remains to this day primarily so, which is why Eastern Rite priests and laity who came to America in the 1800’s fell under the Latin bishop until they received their own bishops, and some still fall under the Latin bishops such as the Russian Catholic’s.
Click to expand...
Confusion of authority within the Catholic Church?
Have you heard of the Ukranian Greek Catholic Patriarch?
Rome denies there’s such a thing while the Ukranians say otherwise.

And of course the Latin Church has jurisdiction in America. The Latin Church has international jurisdiction while the other 21 Catholic Churches have only limited and ethnic jurisdiction.
The Catholic Patriarchs (x3) of Antioch are Patriarchs of Antioch AND All the East (at least traditionally), but I only see Latin Bishops in China and the Philippines.
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
All Catholic “parrallel hierarchies” are in full communion with eachother and the Bishop of Rome and have no rival claims agianst eachother. As such, comparing Catholic “parrallel hierarchies” and Orthodox “parrallel hierarchies” is not a valid comparison since in the former there is no breach of communion or teaching authority while in the latter there most certianly is.

With all due respect, you are trying to compare “apples with oranges.”
Click to expand...
There is no breach of Communion when speaking of Orthodox Parallel hierarchies. I can only assume that you’re thinking of the situation in Ukraine, which is another issue entirely.
 
Hasire said:
The Catholic Patriarchs (x3) of Antioch are Patriarchs of Antioch AND All the East (at least traditionally), but I only see Latin Bishops in China and the Philippines.
Click to expand...
Technical point: the expression “and all the East” doesn’t actually mean “east” in a true geographical sense. It actually denotes the part of the Roman Empire that was designated “Oriens” so called because it was the easternmost region of the Empire.



Further to the East was the Persian Empire. There is (or was) a canonical squabble with the Melkites for having established (or at least tried to establish – I don’t recall the specifics at the moment) a “Patriarchal Exarchate” in (I think) Kuwait, which is well beyond the bounds of Oriens, which means that it’s beyond the extent of what is considered the Patriarchal Territory.
 
malphono said:
Technical point: the expression “and all the East” doesn’t actually mean “east” in a true geographical sense. It actually denotes the part of the Roman Empire that was designated “Oriens” so called because it was the easternmost region of the Empire.

Further to the East was the Persian Empire. There is (or was) a canonical squabble with the Melkites for having established (or at least tried to establish – I don’t recall the specifics at the moment) a “Patriarchal Exarchate” in (I think) Kuwait, which is well beyond the bounds of Oriens, which means that it’s beyond the extent of what is considered the Patriarchal Territory.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.

I still doesn’t solve the problem of Latin Bishops in the East when it should be the Chaldean Church who should be there. At least when they where the Assyrian Church they evangelized 'till China so should their canonical territory be from Persia 'till China?
 
Hasire said:
I stand corrected.

I still doesn’t solve the problem of Latin Bishops in the East when it should be the Chaldean Church who should be there. At least when they where the Assyrian Church they evangelized 'till China so should their canonical territory be from Persia 'till China?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t solve the problem, but just because the area was initially evangelized from the Persian Empire doesn’t necessarily mean the Chaldeans/ACoE would have exclusive jurisdiction from Persia to the Pacific. That is compounded by the fact that, when the ACoE waned, so too did Christianity east of the Persian Empire (except, of course, in what is now Kerala in India). IIRC, about the only remnant of Syriac Christianity in the Far East is an inscription in Syriac somewhere on the Great Wall of China.

In any case. the area east of the Persian Empire was, at the time, uncharted territory, at least so for ecclesiastical purposes, and hence I think it reasonable to assume that it was fair game, so-to-speak. Rome took advantage of the waning of the ACoE, and established itself in India (and in many ways much to the chagrin of the native Christians in what is now Kerala since they were subjugated, but I digress), and beyond, including China and Japan. As much as I resent Rome’s domination and the claim of the “universality” of the Latin Church, even I will not argue about the lands east of the ancient Persian Empire (except, again, for what is now Kerala), nor the lands in eastern Africa south of Ethiopia. Western Africa (west of Egypt and part of what is now Libya), was Latin Church territory from the get-go. And that brings us to the Americas and Australia, which were not even known to exist much less evangelized.
 
malphono said:
No, it doesn’t solve the problem, but just because the area was initially evangelized from the Persian Empire doesn’t necessarily mean the Chaldeans/ACoE would have exclusive jurisdiction from Persia to the Pacific. That is compounded by the fact that, when the ACoE waned, so too did Christianity east of the Persian Empire (except, of course, in what is now Kerala in India). IIRC, about the only remnant of Syriac Christianity in the Far East is an inscription in Syriac somewhere on the Great Wall of China.
Click to expand...
Not sure if this is what you’re thinking of, but there is the Nestorian Stele from the 8th century. That’s in Xi’an, which I’m not sure is anywhere near the Great Wall (Chinese geography is not one of my strong suits).
In any case. the area east of the Persian Empire was, at the time, uncharted territory, at least so for ecclesiastical purposes, and hence I think it reasonable to assume that it was fair game, so-to-speak. Rome took advantage of the waning of the ACoE, and established itself in India (and in many ways much to the chagrin of the native Christians in what is now Kerala since they were subjugated, but I digress), and beyond, including China and Japan. As much as I resent Rome’s domination and the claim of the “universality” of the Latin Church, even I will not argue about the lands east of the ancient Persian Empire (except, again, for what is now Kerala), nor the lands in eastern Africa south of Ethiopia. Western Africa (west of Egypt and part of what is now Libya), was Latin Church territory from the get-go.
Click to expand...
No dispute on the areas west of Libya, but south of Ethiopia…are you sure about that? I thought it was fairly well established that parts of what would become Sudan were either Byzantine or Coptic (depending on the source, generally; I guess the Byzantines have a tradition that the Empress Theodora sent the first missionaries there, but it makes more sense to me that native Coptic missionaries would’ve gotten there first, seeing as how Christianity in Nubia and Meroe postdates Christianity in neighboring Ethiopia, which has always been solidly miaphysite, having been evangelized first by Syriacs, then administered for about 1600 years by Copts) . If there was Roman (as in Latin/Western Roman) influence, you certainly don’t see it in Faras… 🤷
 
malphono said:
No, it doesn’t solve the problem, but just because the area was initially evangelized from the Persian Empire doesn’t necessarily mean the Chaldeans/ACoE would have exclusive jurisdiction from Persia to the Pacific. That is compounded by the fact that, when the ACoE waned, so too did Christianity east of the Persian Empire (except, of course, in what is now Kerala in India). IIRC, about the only remnant of Syriac Christianity in the Far East is an inscription in Syriac somewhere on the Great Wall of China.

In any case. the area east of the Persian Empire was, at the time, uncharted territory, at least so for ecclesiastical purposes, and hence I think it reasonable to assume that it was fair game, so-to-speak. Rome took advantage of the waning of the ACoE, and established itself in India (and in many ways much to the chagrin of the native Christians in what is now Kerala since they were subjugated, but I digress), and beyond, including China and Japan. As much as I resent Rome’s domination and the claim of the “universality” of the Latin Church, even I will not argue about the lands east of the ancient Persian Empire (except, again, for what is now Kerala), nor the lands in eastern Africa south of Ethiopia. Western Africa (west of Egypt and part of what is now Libya), was Latin Church territory from the get-go. And that brings us to the Americas and Australia, which were not even known to exist much less evangelized.
Click to expand...
I think it’s more fair to say that the Portuguese Latin Catholics subjugated the St Thomas Christians. The Latin Church doesn’t have one mind - and especially in the Middle Ages / early modern period it was far less centralized than it is today. Do you think “Rome” was calling all the shots? If I’m not mistaken, even the Portuguese bishops were appointed by the King of Portugual
 
twf said:
I think it’s more fair to say that the Portuguese Latin Catholics subjugated the St Thomas Christians. The Latin Church doesn’t have one mind - and especially in the Middle Ages / early modern period it was far less centralized than it is today. Do you think “Rome” was calling all the shots? If I’m not mistaken, even the Portuguese bishops were appointed by the King of Portugual
Click to expand...
I’ve neither the interest nor patience to go into a major historical discussion here, but suffice it say that ecclesiastical “centralization” was alive and going strong in the 16th century. Let’s face it: the subjugation (and indeed it was subjugation in its worst sense) of the Syro-Malabars could not have occurred without at least the tacit approval and acquiescence of Rome. It took nearly 300 years (a long time even by notoriously slow Roman standards) for the Bishop of Rome to even begin to rectify the abuses.
 
malphono said:
I’ve neither the interest nor patience to go into a major historical discussion here, but suffice it say that ecclesiastical “centralization” was alive and going strong in the 16th century. Let’s face it: the subjugation (and indeed it was subjugation in its worst sense) of the Syro-Malabars could not have occurred without at least the tacit approval and acquiescence of Rome. It took nearly 300 years (a long time even by notoriously slow Roman standards) for the Bishop of Rome to even begin to rectify the abuses.
Click to expand...
Understood. Certainly tacit approval from Rome was involved. Just as a general comment I don’t like the tendency to identify the Latin Church, which is a vast and diverse body, with Rome. Even with the extreme centralization of the contemporary Church…the liturgy, spirituality and practice of the Church in Rome is worlds apart from that in say Santo Domingo…even if one just looks at how the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is celebrated in the average parish between those two dioceses of the Latin Rite, you would swear they were distinct Rites…but that’s another matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top